DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 09-05444 
            ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the case file and pleadings, Applicant failed to provide 
adequate information to mitigate security concerns for personal conduct, alcohol 
consumption, and psychological conditions. Eligibility for access to classified information 
is denied. 
 
On April 24, 2008, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance for her employment 
with a defense contractor. (Item 5) On September 27, 2010, the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant 
detailing security concerns for alcohol consumption under Guideline G, psychological 
conditions under Guideline I, and personal conduct under Guideline E. (Item 1) The 
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information 
within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective in the 
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.  
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 11, 2010. (Item 3) She 
answered the SOR on October 11, 2010, which was received at DOHA on October 29, 
2010. She admitted all allegations under the three guidelines with explanation. She 
elected to have the matter decided on the written record. (Item 4) Department Counsel 
submitted the Government’s written case on December 30, 2010. Applicant received a 
complete file of relevant material (FORM) on January 19, 2011, and was provided the 
opportunity to file objections, and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the 
disqualifying conditions. She did not provide any additional information in response to 
the FORM. The case was assigned to me on March 14, 2011.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 I thoroughly reviewed the case file and the pleadings. I make the following 
findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is 54 years old. She left high school in the 10th grade but obtained a 
General Education Diploma (GED) at age 21. She has been employed by a defense 
contractor as a utility laborer for over three years. Prior to that, she worked at various 
short-term general labor positions. She also had multiple periods of unemployment. She 
was married in 1977, and divorced in 1978. She married again in 1988 and divorced in 
1998. She does not have any children. She has not served in the military but was 
cleared for access to classified information for a short time in 2005. (Item 5)  
 
Applicant admits she consumed alcohol at times to the point of intoxication from 
approximately 1997 until September 2009. (SOR 1.a) She admits she was arrested and 
found guilty of driving while intoxicated in 1993, and sentenced to a fine and ordered to 
attend an alcohol safety program. (SOR 1.b) Applicant admits she voluntarily presented 
herself to a hospital emergency room in June 2006, and was treated for alcohol 
withdrawal and diagnosed as alcohol dependent and having a personality disorder. She 
continued to consume alcohol after receiving the diagnosis. (SOR 1.c, 1.d, 1.e) 
Applicant explained that her consumption of alcohol was in "extreme and measured 
moderation". Applicant admits she had a verbal altercation with a co-worker after work 
after drinking alcohol. She explained that the incidents happened after the co-worker 
was aware of the potential impact of the incident on Applicant's employment. Applicant 
viewed the incidents as frivolous harassment. (SOR 1.f and 1.g)  
 
Applicant admits she was treated in 2006 for a psychotic disorder, not otherwise 
stated, after hearing voices and having visual hallucinations. (SOR 2.a) She also admits 
to having intermittent hallucinations since age 14 (SOR 2.b) However, she notes that 
she does not presently have such hallucinations. Applicant admits that in response to 
Question 24 on the e-QIP asking if since the age of 16 or in the last seven years has 
she used illegal drugs, she admitted only marijuana use from 1975 to 2006 with varying 
frequency, but did not include cocaine use. (SOR 3.a) She admits to using marijuana 
with varying frequency from 1975 until June 2006 (SOR 3.b), and cocaine with varying 
frequency from 1974 until at least February 2006. (SOR 3.c) She explained that her 
marijuana and cocaine use was miniscule and sporadic and not regular. (Item 4) 
 
3 
 
 
In response to questions from an OPM security investigator, Applicant stated she 
was arrested and convicted of driving while intoxicated in July 1983. She had been at a 
bar with friends and consumed six or seven beers before driving home. She paid a fine 
and attended alcohol awareness classes. She also told the investigator that she was 
hospitalized for three days in July 2006 for hallucinations after consuming alcohol. 
However, she had not consumed alcohol for three days before the hallucinations. She 
had hallucinations on only one occasion. She also stated that she was not diagnosed as 
alcohol dependent and was not told to abstain from alcohol consumption. She informed 
the investigator of a verbal altercation with a co-worker in April 2009. She 
acknowledged that at the time she consumed three or four beers and one or two drinks 
of alcohol since she was not on duty. She stated she used marijuana starting in high 
school in February 1975. She stopped using in June 2006 because of her present 
employment. She admitted to the investigator that she used cocaine but her last use 
was in January or February 2006. She stopped using cocaine because it was no longer 
fun and a waste of money. She did not list her cocaine use on her e-QIP because she 
did not believe she needed to list every drug she used. She believed if she listed the 
marijuana use it would be realized that she was probably using other drugs. She also 
believed knowledge of her cocaine use may prevent her from obtaining a security 
clearance. (Item 6)  
 
In her September 16, 2009 response to DOHA Interrogatories, Applicant admits 
that she consumes alcohol sometimes to the point of intoxication. The last time she was 
intoxicated from the use of alcohol was September 5, 2009, which was two weeks 
before she completed the interrogatory. She admitted that she still consumes alcohol. 
She admits to receiving medical treatment due to the use of alcohol in 2006. She also 
admits the 1983 arrest and conviction for driving while intoxicated (Items 11 and 12), 
and use of marijuana at least once a week from February 1975 until June 2006. (Item 
10) 
 
Medical records show Applicant was hospitalized in June 2009 for hallucinations 
caused by alcohol consumption. She also admitted to having hallucinations since age 
14 when ghosts and the grim reaper appeared to her. Her discharge diagnosis in 2009 
was psychotic disorder not otherwise specified, alcohol dependence, and alcohol 
withdrawal which was treated. She was provided group and individual therapy to help 
understand the nature of her condition, the consequences of continued drinking, the 
effects of the alcohol, and causes for the hallucinations. She was provided assistance in 
making follow-on appointments for mental health and alcohol programs. (Items 7, 8 and 
9) 
 
Policy 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered in 
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
4 
 
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as 
the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, 
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in 
making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on 
the evidence contained in the record.  
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, 
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The 
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security 
decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of 
classified information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Alcohol Consumption 
 
Excessive alcohol consumption is a security concern because it often leads to 
the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise 
questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. (AG ¶ 21) Applicant 
admits consuming alcohol sometimes to the point of intoxication from 1975 until 
September 2009. She admits that she was arrested, convicted, and sentenced for 
driving while intoxicated in 1983. She admits to being hospitalized after alcohol 
consumption and being diagnosed as alcohol dependent in 2006. She continued 
drinking alcohol after being diagnosed as alcohol dependent. She also admits to two 
verbal altercations with a co-worker after work after consuming alcohol.  
 
 
5 
 
 
Applicant's excess consumption of alcohol and her diagnosis as alcohol 
dependent raises Alcohol Consumption Disqualifying Conditions (AC DC) AG ¶ 22(a) 
(alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, 
fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, 
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol 
dependent0; and AC DC AG ¶(d) (diagnosis by a duly qualified medical professional 
(e.g. physician, clinical psychologist, or psychiatrist) of alcohol abuse or alcohol 
dependence). The only information that Applicant was ever convicted of alcohol-related 
issues was her driving while intoxicated conviction in 1983. This may raise AC DC AG ¶ 
22(g) (failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, 
treatment, or abstinence). The information shows Applicant completed all aspects of her 
sentence as a result of this conviction, so this disqualifying condition is not raised.  
 
 I considered Alcohol Consumption Mitigating Condition (AC MC) AG ¶ 23(a) (so 
much time has passed or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such 
unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the 
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) and determined that it 
does not apply. While there is no "bright line" rule for determining when conduct is 
recent or sufficient time has passed since the incidents, a determination whether past 
conduct affects an individual's present reliability and trustworthiness must be based on 
a careful evaluation of the totality of the evidence. If the evidence shows a significant 
period of time has passed without evidence of misconduct, there must be an evaluation 
whether that period of time demonstrates changed circumstances or conduct sufficient 
to indicate a finding of reform or rehabilitation. Applicant admits that she last consumed 
alcohol to the point of intoxication in September 2009 but that she still continues to 
consume alcohol in "extreme and measured moderation". She presented no evidence to 
show she is involved in alcohol counseling of any sort. She has not provided information 
to meet her burden of establishing life circumstance changes to indicate she has 
reformed or been rehabilitated. It is likely her previous alcohol consumption problems 
will recur. Her present circumstances and life style are not sufficiently changed to show 
that her past conduct does not now reflect adversely on her current reliability, 
trustworthiness, and good judgment.  
 
 I also considered AC MC AG ¶ 23(b) (the individual acknowledges his or her 
alcoholism or issues of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of action taken to overcome 
this problem, and has established a pattern of abstinence (if alcohol dependent) or 
responsible use (if an alcohol abuser)). The mitigating condition does not apply. 
Applicant acknowledges her consumption of alcohol but not that it is a problem or that 
she is alcohol dependent. However, medical records do establish that she was 
diagnosed as alcohol dependent. Since she is alcohol dependent, she has not 
established a pattern of alcohol abstinence or even responsible use of alcohol. She 
does not indicate that she is now participating or has participated in any alcohol-related 
treatment except for the treatment required by the court as a result of her 1983 
conviction for driving while intoxicated and the treatment received during her 2006 
hospitalization for hallucinations resulting from alcohol consumption. In total, Applicant 
has not presented sufficient information to meet her burden to establish that her past 
 
6 
 
 
alcohol use is under control and her alcohol consumption does not reflect now on her 
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Applicant has not mitigated security 
concerns for alcohol consumption. 
 
Psychological Conditions 
 
Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, 
reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to 
be a concern under this guideline. A duly qualified mental health professional (clinical 
psychologist or psychiatrist) employed by or acceptable to and approved by the U. S. 
Government, should be consulted when evaluating potentially disqualifying and 
mitigating information under this guideline (AG ¶ 28).  
 
 Applicant voluntarily presented herself to the emergency room complaining of 
hearing voices. She was referred to and seen by a physician in the mental health clinic. 
She remained in the hospital for two days. She admitted she had past hallucinations 
concerning ghosts and the grim reaper. On discharge, she was diagnosed with a 
personality disorder not otherwise specified and alcohol dependence. This diagnosis 
raises Psychological Conditions Disqualifying Conditions (PSY DC) AG ¶ 28(a) 
(behavior that casts doubt on an individual's judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness that 
is not covered under any other guideline, including but not limited to emotionally 
unstable, irresponsible, dysfunctional, violent, paranoid or bizarre behavior); and PSY 
DC AG ¶ 28(b) (an opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the 
individual has a condition not covered under any other guideline that may impair 
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness). Since the psychological report presents 
substantial evidence to raise the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 28(a) and (b), the 
burden shifts to Applicant to produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate 
the security concerns under psychological conditions. An applicant has the burden to 
refute an established allegation or prove a mitigating condition, and the burden to prove 
or disprove it never shifts. 
  
 In evaluating the mental health professional's opinion, I considered Psychological 
Conditions Mitigating Conditions (PSY MC) AG ¶ 29(a) (the indentified condition is 
readily controllable with treatment, and the individual has demonstrated ongoing and 
consistent compliance with the treatment plan); PSY MC AG ¶ 29(b) (the individual has 
voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for the condition that is amenable 
to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving counseling or treatment with a 
favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental health professional); PSY MC AG ¶ 29(c) 
(recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by or 
acceptable to and approved by the U. S. Government that an individual's previous 
condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence or 
exacerbation); PSY MC AG ¶ 29(d) (the past emotional instability was a temporary 
condition (e.g., one caused by death, illness, or marital breakup), the situation has been 
resolved and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability); and 
PSY MC AG ¶ 29(e) (there is no indication of a current problem). I find that none of 
these mitigating conditions apply. While Applicant's condition may be controllable by 
 
7 
 
 
treatment, she has not demonstrated she voluntarily entered into and is consistently in 
compliance with any treatment plan. She does not indicate she is currently receiving 
counseling or treatment for her personality disorder or alcohol dependence. The last 
indication of an alcohol or psychological issue was in September 2009. However, there 
is no indication that the alcohol-related issues were temporary and no longer causing 
emotional instability. The personality disorder and alcohol dependence are not 
temporary, and there are no indications they have been resolved. Applicant is not now 
in any mental health treatment program. Accordingly, it is clear that Applicant has not 
mitigated security concerns based on psychological conditions.  
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 A security concern is raised because conduct involving questionable judgment, 
untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations 
can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect 
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid 
answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the 
security clearance process. (AG ¶ 15) Personal conduct is always a security concern 
because it asks the central question whether the person’s past conduct justifies 
confidence the person can be entrusted to properly safeguard classified information. 
The security clearance system depends on the individual providing correct and accurate 
information. If a person conceals or provides false information, the security clearance 
process cannot function properly to ensure that granting access to classified information 
is in the best interest of the United States Government. 
 
 Applicant provided only a partial answer to a question concerning her use of 
illegal drugs. She indicated marijuana use but not cocaine use. Later, she admitted to 
the use of cocaine from 1974 until February 2006. The failure to provide full and 
complete information concerning drug usage raises a security concern under Personal 
Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) AG ¶ 16(a) (the deliberate omission, 
concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security 
questionnaire, personal history, or similar form used to conduct investigations, to 
determine security eligibility or trustworthiness).Her use of marijuana and cocaine raises 
PC DC ¶ 16(e) (personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct, 
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such as (1) engaging 
in activities which, if known, may affect the person's personal, professional, or 
community standing, . . . ).  
 
 Applicant admits that she deliberately did not provide information on her security 
clearance application concerning her cocaine use because in part she feared it would 
adversely affect her ability to obtain a security clearance. There is a security concern for 
any omission, concealment, or falsification of a material fact in any written document or 
oral statement to the government when applying for a security clearance. Applicant's 
failure to provide information on her cocaine use was done knowingly and deliberately 
with intent to deceive. The use of marijuana and cocaine is a criminal act. The use of 
illegal drugs and commission of a criminal act would, if known, affect her personal, 
 
8 
 
 
professional and community standing. I considered all mitigating conditions under 
personal conduct and determine that none apply. I find against Applicant as to personal 
conduct. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information by considering the totality of the 
applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider 
the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for access to 
classified information must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.      
   
 I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant has not established that 
her psychological condition and alcohol consumption are under control and do not 
cause a security concern. She abused alcohol and drugs over a long period of time. 
While she indicates she no longer uses illegal drugs, she does admit to some alcohol 
consumption after being diagnosed as alcohol dependent. She deliberately did not 
provide information on her use of cocaine. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with 
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. She 
has not established her suitability for access to classified information. For all these 
reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her 
alcohol consumption, psychological condition, and personal conduct. Eligibility for 
access to classified information is denied. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline G:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.g:  Against Applicant  
 
 
9 
 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline I:   AGAINST APPLICANT  
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.b:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 3: Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 3.a - 3.c:  Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for access to 
classified information. Access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge